2.50% - 1 Year Fix - If Manchester United win Premier League ( 1.25% otherwise)

bristolleedsfan

[FONT=&amp]http://uk.virginmoney.com/savings/find/man_utd_1_year_fixed_rate_champions_e_bond_issue_1/overview/

[/FONT]Requiring a minimum deposit of just £1, Man Utd 1 Year Fixed Rate Champions E-Bond Issue 1 pays 1.25% on maturity, but will double to 2.50% yearly if Manchester United win the 2016/17 Premier League title.

Additional deposits into this internet-based account are accepted as long as the issue remains open, but it is not possible to access funds early prior to maturity. Savers will also receive 10 entries per month into the monthly United Rewards prize draw plus one additional entry per £50 balance each month, based on the average balance in the month.

karlie88

Think I'll wait for the launch of Newcastle Building Society's 2 year fix bond.

Pays 2.25% on maturity, but will quadruple to 9% if Newcastle United win the 2017/18 Premier League title.

Malthusian

Manchester United are currently 3-1 to win the title so, if we take that to imply a 25% chance of getting the bonus, that implies an expected return of 1.56% plus whatever you get in the United Rewards thing. Actually not that bad considering the best buy rate is 1.66%.

Of course, this assumes that the odds are an accurate reflection of the probability of Mourinho getting a tune out of Rooney, Fellaini, Ibra and whoever Woodward pulls out of his sack. In reality of course odds are about supply and demand, and more a reflection of the fact that the entire population of Essex is bashing the wine gums on their favourite team.

The same odds table suggests that Conte's Chelsea (largely the same side that were champions in 2015 plus N'Golo Kante, plus serial winner Antonio Conte) are half as likely to win the title as a side that have been nowhere near since Fergie retired, so I call balls on that.

Personally I'd be looking for a bond that pays 1% interest plus 0.5% for every time Leeds have a new manager this season.

kingrulzuk

Richard Branson hasn't payed any tax in the UK since he set up his 12 offshore Channel Island, Trust Funds in 1975 -- He is no longer a UK a resident, since last year 2015, when he rescinded this in favour of being absolutely sure that he wasn't going to have to pay any tax -- He has for over 40 years always been one step ahead of HMRC -- People like Branson are part of the reason why the country has a huge deficit -- All this from a man who over the years has literally and metaphorically wrapped himself in the Union Jack. -- Part of having a fully functioning Democratic Country is to pay the taxes you owe, this isn't just part of Democracy, it is also a cornerstone of Capitalism for without taxes payed fairly in a Capitalist system the whole edifice breaks down

Malthusian

kingrulzuk wrote: »

People like Branson are part of the reason why the country has a huge deficit

Because if anyone in this country makes a success of themselves and creates thousands of jobs we show our gratitude by taxing them until the pips squeak? Or, more frequently, they flee overseas.

bigadaj

Malthusian wrote: »

Because if anyone in this country makes a success of themselves and creates thousands of jobs we show our gratitude by taxing them until the pips squeak? Or, more frequently, they flee overseas.

Not really, don't forget the private equity guys and hedge fund managers paying less tax than their cleaners.

It's not exactly the 1970s is it, 98% highest rate or over 100% in certain instances then.

kidmugsy

kingrulzuk wrote: »

Richard Branson... is no longer a UK a resident, since last year 2015

If we are to tax non-residents, why stop at Branson? How about taxing, say, Hillary and her crooked Clinton Foundation? Trump and his absurd hairdo? Mr Putin and whatever ill-gotten spoils he has stashed away in Switzerland?

Do enough of that and none of us residents need pay a penny of income tax. Hurray!

Eco_Miser

kidmugsy wrote: »

If we are to tax non-residents, why stop at Branson? How about taxing, say, Hillary and her crooked Clinton Foundation? Trump and his absurd hairdo?

Certainly, whichever of those two win, they will be taxing non-resident US citizens.

kidmugsy

Eco_Miser wrote: »

Certainly, whichever of those two win, they will be taxing non-resident US citizens.

Yep, you are a tax-slave to the Land of the Free wherever in the world you live and earn your income. Hence Boris's rage at being charged US CGT on selling his London house.

bigadaj

kidmugsy wrote: »

Yep, you are a tax-slave to the Land of the Free wherever in the world you live and earn your income. Hence Boris's rage at being charged US CGT on selling his London house.

I thought boris had renounced his us citizenship?

EdSwippet

bigadaj wrote: »

I thought boris had renounced his us citizenship?

Loath as I am to quote the Daily Mail, this report published a week ago suggests that he has, but only after having to pay US tax on the sale of his UK home.

Mr Johnson, who has previously enjoyed dual nationality, has given up his American citizenship, which meant filing tax returns on both sides of the pond.

He sorted out a deal with US authorities in March with the help of his friend US ambassador Matthew Barzun – but not before paying a six- figure US tax bill last year after selling his Islington townhouse.

Hodder & Stoughton declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Mr Johnson.

A Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that the Foreign Secretary was no longer an American citizen.

That said, Boris has blustered several times about renouncing US citizenship, starting in 2006 when he was refused boarding on a plane to the US because he only held a UK passport; by law US citizens must use US passports to travel to the US. If he has actually gone through with it now, it has taken him a decade of vacillation and cost him a fair bit of money in deadweight US tax that he could have saved if he'd renounced sooner.